This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I watched the Harris speech this morning and wrote down some scattered thoughts. My apologies if any of them don't make sense without having watched, I was just typing a few things up as I watched.
Nice outfit - fairly warm while still professional.
When she mentioned going to Illinois, there was a small cheer, when she mentioned Wisconsin there was a much larger cheer. No one likes Illinois, not even the people that live there.
Talking about the experience of “injustice” is in such bad taste for the child of professors. These are privileged people that found immense opportunity in the United States. I realize that the whole Democrat schtick is playing up how oppressed people of color are, but it’s ridiculous for Harris.
The phrase, “I’ve only had one client - the people” is a fantastic way to spin never having held a private sector job. Good speechwriting!
The line referring to Trump as an “unserious man” is a good line. Trump’s lack of seriousness is obvious to all but his most ardent supporters. This criticism rings as much more on point than all of the Russia conspiracy and “coup” nonsense ever could.
The claim that Trump has an “explicit intent to jail journalists” is just an outright lie.
The callback to her earlier line with “the only client he has ever had - himself” is great speechwriting. Banger of a setup and punchline. Much like the lack of seriousness jab, this rings much more true than all of the dark conspiracy stuff.
The line that the Department of Education “funds our public schools” is pretty weird. It’s not quite literally false, the DoE does spend ~$20 billion on public school funding, but total American school spending is nearly $1 trillion and the vast majority of it is state and local money. Are people under the impression that school funding is a big thing that DoE does or is it just a bit of rhetoric?
Referring to abortion as “decisions of heart and home” is an interesting tactic. Abortion is a huge winning issue for Democrats, but it’s so frequently referred to with euphemisms rather than in the most literal terminology. I’m basically entirely on the same side as Democrats on the issue, which makes it more interesting to me that it tends to come with alternative phrasing rather than just saying what they mean.
Shoehorning every issue into “freedom” requires some downright Orwellian twists. Abrogating the constitutional freedom of the right to bear arms is inverted to “freedom to live without gun violence”. A massive regulatory state creating arcane rules for everything from flow of showerheads to the powertrains of vehicles becomes “the freedom to live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis”. I think the framing probably works for people on that side of those issues though.
Claiming that the recent Senate border bill was the “strongest in decades” is a lie. HR 2 from 2023 passed the House and was much stronger but was unacceptable to Democrats. I do understand that this one has become an accepted truth among Democrats though, so it probably plays pretty well. Continuing to push this one requires a fully complicit media, but she can safely rely on that.
The Israel line is politically palatable, but also pretty hollow. Israel has a right to defend itself, but the Palestinian people will get freedom and self-determination - OK, what’s that look like? As near as I can tell, Palestinian self-determination selects Islamist leaders. Islamist leaders want dead Israelis and the land returned to Palestinians from the river to the sea. You can’t solve this problem if you’re not addressing reality. Someone has to actually lose.
Overall, it was a well-delivered speech that tacks towards the middle on most issues. While I am personally not impressed by teleprompter speeches, her tone and clarity were both quite good. Simply being energetic and eloquent is a good look. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would feel good about the speech and consider it a positive step towards victory.
A lot of people in this country are generally in favor of (some) abortion being legal but are really uncomfortable with the reality of killing a fetus. Blunt language drives some of those people away, while euphemisms help keep them comfortable voting D.
I'm reminded of a clip I saw of Bill Maher who said something along the lines of "Conservatives are right, abortion is killing a baby, and I'm OK with that. We need to be honest about it". And all his guest were just emoting some form of "Oh Bill.... no....".
Here is the clip.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XQvB55pAFy0
I dunno, I prefer the pro-murder/anti-woman framing more than I like the pro-choice/pro-life one, since it obviates the "what's a life" and "is deformity X worthy of life" questions the pro-choice faction wants to dance around and makes more salient the "are miscarriages murder?" point that our tendency to regulate literally everything inexorably leads us to.
Of course, because my answer to both of those questions tends toward "no" it's going to come into conflict with the people who answer those questions with "yes", and it is the side that will answer "yes" to those questions that has control of the framing. (Obviously the pro-choice people think it's a life, that's why they depend on the excuses to rationalize it.)
I mean, if you are pro-life, obviously youd prefer this because the anti-woman frame collapses quickly under scrutiny.
I am not pro-life.
You're ignoring that female privilege is ultimately what holds that frame up. Removing privilege from any group is by definition anti-that-group.
The truth is that honoring that privilege necessitates you being OK with baby murder, just like when men use the privilege of self-defense to kill people that attack them [as opposed to specifically pro-choice women, who are also most likely to insist that criminals have the right to not be killed when they try to rob or kill you because it's involuntary... exactly like an [unwanted] baby does].
Which is kind of why the "principled exceptions" are the way that they are- an exception for rape pregnancies bestows upon the victim the privilege to not suffer/support a forced pregnancy, fine before X weeks bestows the privilege to exempt people who can't afford to be (or can't for medical reasons) pregnant from pregnancy, an exception for birth defects serious enough to render the baby incompatible with normal life that the body doesn't auto-abort bestows the privilege for parents to evade a bad roll of the cosmic dice, and an exception for incest touches both 1 and 3. That's also why the non-selfish anti-woman charities tend to focus on fixing the second one, because 1, 3, and to a point 4 are a lot less controversial (1 and 4 are mostly solved by implantable birth control and Plan B; condemning 3 is not so much anti-woman as it is anti-parent, and people who are anti-woman also tend to be pro-parent).
Maybe its just me, but I am having difficulty understanding your post.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link